@ Rob Ok first i would like to apologize, i did not mean to call you a moron. just got carried away there, but maybe im missing something maybe you can enlighten me , why do some ppl think that playing Blu-ray movies and playing Blu-ray games are any different they both use the same blue light laser, what can they take out that would save them any money,? I do believe that Phil Harrison stated in an interview that the blu-ray in the ps3 was not put in the ps3 solely for playing back movie but for the storage size on the disc for games, and it dose not cost them anymore money to have it in there as a movie player. and if your going to say the licensing fee for using the blu-ray i do believe that sony is the creator of the blu-ray and they would not have to pay themselves for it, unlike the cd that was jointly created by others including sony. please , please, show me some proof once and for all, a link of some kind that proves your theory, and i will then come back and agree with you. thank you.
I was only suggesting on ways for Sony to make the PS3 price lower. Would disabling Blu-Ray (movies) playback capabilities be cost effective? I really don't know. I don't have numbers, statistics, or anything of the like to support my opinion. I was just thinking. Can I be wrong about all my suggestions? Sure. However, I do know that some companies would, sort of, hide some features found in their programs/hardware, and have the power to activate them if you're willing to pay for additional features.
What is Sony going to do? I really don't know. But, often times, it seems like they keep on going the opposite direction from what those "undecided buyers" are looking for. The same issue is found on the PSP. I love my PSP, but Sony has dropped the ball there too. However, PSP and PS3 interaction is just plain and simply beautiful.
If they dropped the coding to allow the drive itself to read the movie files, but still read the game discs (its all in the coding) and have that as an optional activatable feature, then that would save them some money in production, allowing them to sell it at a cheaper price.
Then again, they would still be losing roughly 300 bucks but thats better than taking a dive to maybe 350-400 (depending on how much that switch takes off).
No matter how you slice it, though, the Blu-ray drive was a waste. Its slow as Hell (1x) compared to the 360 drive (12x), so load times are unbelievably long, and every game has to "install" itself (cache some info) to make load times a bit quicker (not much). Not to mention the Blu-ray drives are expensive no matter what, and more expensive than HD-DVD. Sony should have gone with DVD9 or HD-DVD to cut costs down.
Zeus, I'm dumbfounded as to how I should reply to you sometimes. You just hit these astronomical levels of stupidity that are difficult to absorb all in one sitting. I like when you try to get all elementary-esque technical, but it doesn't suit you chap.
The Blu-Ray drive is a waste? You have to be out of your gourd... seriously man... that PS3 trojan horse (that I don't even own so no bias there) is the PRIMARY reason Blu-Ray is in a strong lead of the format war, and why someday you will own a PS and you'll be here raving about it in every related thread.
Notwithstanding, your point on drive speeds between blu-ray and dvd is dead wrong, and somebody already pointed this out to you in a previous thread but you're quick to forget aren't you; rehashing the same tired arguments over and over and over...
:::::::::::ALL COMMENTS TO ZEUS ON THIS EXACT SAME THING::::::::::
"The 2x being "slow" is FUD. It means absolutely nothing if you can even differentiate a hint about CLV and CAV drives.
HD-DVD has a maximum data transfer rate of 36 Mbps (for both movies and data) while a 2x Blu-ray player yields 72 Mbps."
"Actually, the ps3 is one of the better blu-ray players out there, unlike the xb360 hd-dvd drive, which is ranked pretty low among hd-dvd players."
"Get Your Facts Right.
Actually, The PS3 is one of the Best Bluray Players out at the Moment, and considered a bargain. It use HDMI Ver. 1.3, can play all the latest Java niceties on BD Movies Discs, very fast response and has the abilty to output Full 1080p without upscaling or compressing image or audio.
Review from AVGuide link - http://www.avguide.com/products/product-3766/ [Aside from the lack of DVD conversion and automatic disc-format detection, I could find little to fault in the PS3's performance as a Blu-ray player. Picture and sound quality were first-rate (with a few caveats on DVD playback), and the console was far more responsive than other high-def players in my experience. At nearly half the price of the next most expensive Blu-ray player (unless you fall prey to scalpers), this black beauty is one hell of a deal]"
"That's total bs. The PlayStation 3 is actually faster than most of its contemporary standalone Blu-ray Disc players, because it loads the disc from a system that has already initiated. Both audio and video quality are on par with, if not better than most, standalone Blu-ray Disc players because it is the first commercial product to implemented HDMI 1.3, which adds support for several next-generation audio formats."
"I'm moving to a small studio and for some reason the cable connection is in an awkward place and I need a way to transmit HD quality video and audio no more than 20 feet away. What is the best wireless HDMI transmitter / receiver for this situation? Thanks!"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@ Rob
Ok first i would like to apologize, i did not mean to call you a moron. just got carried away there, but maybe im missing something maybe you can enlighten me , why do some ppl think that playing Blu-ray movies and playing Blu-ray games are any different they both use the same blue light laser, what can they take out that would save them any money,? I do believe that Phil Harrison stated in an interview that the blu-ray in the ps3 was not put in the ps3 solely for playing back movie but for the storage size on the disc for games, and it dose not cost them anymore money to have it in there as a movie player. and if your going to say the licensing fee for using the blu-ray i do believe that sony is the creator of the blu-ray and they would not have to pay themselves for it, unlike the cd that was jointly created by others including sony. please , please, show me some proof once and for all, a link of some kind that proves your theory, and i will then come back and agree with you. thank you.
I was only suggesting on ways for Sony to make the PS3 price lower. Would disabling Blu-Ray (movies) playback capabilities be cost effective? I really don't know. I don't have numbers, statistics, or anything of the like to support my opinion. I was just thinking. Can I be wrong about all my suggestions? Sure. However, I do know that some companies would, sort of, hide some features found in their programs/hardware, and have the power to activate them if you're willing to pay for additional features.
What is Sony going to do? I really don't know. But, often times, it seems like they keep on going the opposite direction from what those "undecided buyers" are looking for. The same issue is found on the PSP. I love my PSP, but Sony has dropped the ball there too. However, PSP and PS3 interaction is just plain and simply beautiful.
If they dropped the coding to allow the drive itself to read the movie files, but still read the game discs (its all in the coding) and have that as an optional activatable feature, then that would save them some money in production, allowing them to sell it at a cheaper price.
Then again, they would still be losing roughly 300 bucks but thats better than taking a dive to maybe 350-400 (depending on how much that switch takes off).
No matter how you slice it, though, the Blu-ray drive was a waste. Its slow as Hell (1x) compared to the 360 drive (12x), so load times are unbelievably long, and every game has to "install" itself (cache some info) to make load times a bit quicker (not much). Not to mention the Blu-ray drives are expensive no matter what, and more expensive than HD-DVD. Sony should have gone with DVD9 or HD-DVD to cut costs down.
Zeus, I'm dumbfounded as to how I should reply to you sometimes. You just hit these astronomical levels of stupidity that are difficult to absorb all in one sitting. I like when you try to get all elementary-esque technical, but it doesn't suit you chap.
The Blu-Ray drive is a waste? You have to be out of your gourd... seriously man... that PS3 trojan horse (that I don't even own so no bias there) is the PRIMARY reason Blu-Ray is in a strong lead of the format war, and why someday you will own a PS and you'll be here raving about it in every related thread.
Notwithstanding, your point on drive speeds between blu-ray and dvd is dead wrong, and somebody already pointed this out to you in a previous thread but you're quick to forget aren't you; rehashing the same tired arguments over and over and over...
:::::::::::ALL COMMENTS TO ZEUS ON THIS EXACT SAME THING::::::::::
"The 2x being "slow" is FUD. It means absolutely nothing if you can even differentiate a hint about CLV and CAV drives.
HD-DVD has a maximum data transfer rate of 36 Mbps (for both movies and data) while a 2x Blu-ray player yields 72 Mbps."
"Actually, the ps3 is one of the better blu-ray players out there, unlike the xb360 hd-dvd drive, which is ranked pretty low among hd-dvd players."
"Get Your Facts Right.
Actually, The PS3 is one of the Best Bluray Players out at the Moment, and considered a bargain.
It use HDMI Ver. 1.3, can play all the latest Java niceties on BD Movies Discs, very fast response and has the abilty to output Full 1080p without upscaling or compressing image or audio.
Review from AVGuide link - http://www.avguide.com/products/product-3766/ [Aside from the lack of DVD conversion and automatic disc-format detection, I could find little to fault in the PS3's performance as a Blu-ray player. Picture and sound quality were first-rate (with a few caveats on DVD playback), and the console was far more responsive than other high-def players in my experience. At nearly half the price of the next most expensive Blu-ray player (unless you fall prey to scalpers), this black beauty is one hell of a deal]"
"That's total bs. The PlayStation 3 is actually faster than most of its contemporary standalone Blu-ray Disc players, because it loads the disc from a system that has already initiated. Both audio and video quality are on par with, if not better than most, standalone Blu-ray Disc players because it is the first commercial product to implemented HDMI 1.3, which adds support for several next-generation audio formats."
http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/18/microsoft-still-not-so-keen-on-blu-ray/#comments